I worry for the spines of people who bend over backwards so often to misinterpret these comics. They complain that Tat has changed and won't get off this feminist tack - butthen do everything to prove that actually Tat is not writing anything supporting feminist ideals.

I worry for the spines of people who bend over backwards so often to misinterpret these comics. They complain that Tat has changed and won't get off this feminist tack - butthen do everything to prove that actually Tat is not writing anything supporting feminist ideals

I don't think anyone is arguing that this isn't his actual feelings on the subject. The point of contention is why Slick suddenly makes these huge leaps of character from one comic to the next.

And they're right, it seems Slick is always taking one step forward, and two steps back as a character. To me this seems to be the underlying symptom of the entire strip focusing on his internal conflicts. He can't really improve his character because then the strip has no antagonistic force for Slick to focus on each day.

So instead we're stuck in Dr. Jekyll and Mr. Hyde land with Slick, Angry Tat Slick who represents the typical "Dudebro", And Kcils. All fighting for control.

In general, people argue as if Tat is actually not saying misogyny exists ad is bad - which is something that was said here (Ie: Tat oud be writing about anything, ot jut misogyny, therefore this strip is not about misogyny.)

Tat wrote misogyny over and over and over. How much more learly could he make it this trip is about misogyny?_________________::lesser crisis mode::

People don't get horrified when they realize others are against what they support. That's not a common response.

I've certainly never seen it in real life, or read about it in any story or news article or any form of written or visual media.

Horrified may be a simplistic description, but there are a variety of negative responses that are common to ingroup and outgroup differences, including demonization of the outgroup (that is, people who are different from you). Cognitive dissonance also creeps in whenever we're forced to recognize that our behavior and our beliefs may be in conflict, such as when Slick is forced to realize some of his behavior may still conflict with his newfound acceptance of empowerment of women. Then of course there's reactance, the visceral response to either real or perceived restriction of freedoms. There are really a ton of ego-sparing defense mechanisms that people engage in when their behavior is called into question (by themselves or others).

Attacking a detractor is a very basic and easy response that, despite being totally irrational, alleviates the anxiety induced when a person is forced to reckon their actions or beliefs against other beliefs that don't jibe. We want to be consistant, and defense mechanisms are one way of maintaining the illusion of consistency.* I'm sure you've experienced these before, in yourself or others.

* Working through defense mechanisms is how we actually become consistant, by reconciling our inconsistencies and changing either our ideas, our behavior, or both, to put the two in harmony._________________"Worse comes to worst, my people come first, but my tribe lives on every country on earth. Iíll do anything to protect them from hurt, the human race is what I serve." - Baba Brinkman

Joined: 29 Jan 2013Posts: 1107Location: Chamber of the House of Lords, Palace of Westminister

Posted: Fri May 31, 2013 10:28 am Post subject:

That sounds familiar. I have a lot of problems with consistency. I tend to be weak and wishy-washy and just sort of backtrack all the time. Every time I say something, I find myself wanting to unsay it very quickly. That's sort of why I avoid any serious discussion on this forum._________________Good day, good people!

i figured that slick was fine with the misogyny, because he wasn't really seeing it, and certainly not seeing it as hurting any individual. but the sign he saw as an attack on _him_, which of course is just awful.

i think slick can't see himself as a misogynist, because clearly he doesn't hate women - he loves women! he wants them to love him! he wants to be with them and in them and around them and..... and he really doesn't get that the whole playboy women-exist-to-satisfy-me thing really is, ultimately, based on a hatred of women._________________aka: neverscared!
a flux of vibrant matter

I think Sinfest has, over the years, developed into two separate-but-still-the-same entities. One is the relatively simple, gag-a-day strip that has since day one revolved around the lovable and generally well meaning, but also selfish, misguided, opportunistic, oblivious, and (of course) misogynist Slick. At the end of the day, Garfield will always eat the lasagna, Charlie Brown will always miss the football, Calvin will always avoid his homework, and Slick will always indulge in...whatever. It wouldn't be the same Sinfest if he didn't.

Then there's the other Sinfest, which has introduced and developed endearing characters, with story arcs that span weeks. There, we (some of us anyway) root for Slick--he's trying! He's learning! His heart's in the right place, even if he's not quite there! If he wanted to, Tat could turn Sinfest into a redemption story for Slick. He's a main character, and not really a bad one, so we want to see him do well, and that means he needs to learn the right lessons.

Which is why it can be so jolting to see Slick appear to take one step forward and two steps back. It seems to me that we're seeing Slick in a character-developing story, and then the next day, Slick in a single gag comic strip. I think that's the sort of thing going on here.

From my perspective, it looks like there's nothing particularly meaningful about this strip: Slick joyously, maybe even unknowingly, partakes in his favorite misogynist pastimes, only to cry "Hater!" when someone points it out. Hilarity ensues! The gag could have been driven home even more if Squig was in one panel, maybe D-Man in another, and the three of them together in the last, shocked and appalled at the oppression they suffer under this single lil'Sis.

There might be a double meaning in the final panel. After all, miniFem was the one shouting "Kill all men!" a few strips ago so she really is a hater, whether Slick knows it or not.

Because gods forbid anyone should have an opinion different from yours. I acknowledge that the main theme is media brainwashing and Slick's semi-concious hypocrisy, I just noted the irony, perhap intentional, perhaps not, that the one he called a hater is indeed, the most misandrist of the Sisterhood.

No, god forbid you fuckwits not just leave. You, arthain, crayven, you're all too uneducated on the subject material, and too butt-hurt over the feminism arc to actually engage in debate, so its just an endless string of you morons bending over backwards to find fault in the comics.

Tricksterson: You cannot be trusted to have a credible grasp of the subject material and we are not interested in your interpretations._________________